When it comes to evaluating the financial performance of top movies, it isn’t about what a film grosses at the box office. The true tale is told when production budgets, P&A, talent participations and other costs collide with box office grosses and ancillary revenues from VOD to DVD and TV. To get close to that mysterious end of the equation, Deadline is repeating our Most Valuable Blockbuster tournament, using data culled by seasoned and trusted sources.

THE FILMIf you look at all the bullets Tom Cruise dodged in Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation, most consisted of surviving very difficult stunts like hanging off a plane, an extended sequence where he had to hold his breath three minutes underwater to complete a scene shot in a single take and almost getting hit by a double-decker bus during another scene. But the biggest was the brilliant decision by Paramount to change plans from a December 25 release to summer. The studio did it to avoid Star Wars: The Force Awakens, and boy was that a good idea, as the Force cut into the business of every year-end film.

THE BOX SCORE
Here are the costs and revenues as our experts see them:

THE BOTTOM LINEThe franchise revival Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol was a hard act to follow, but Rogue Nation came close. Much had to do with the exuberance of Cruise and his willingness to do the craziest of stunts to make his Ethan Hunt convincing. This was the first Mission: Impossible for Chris McQuarrie, who reworked Drew Pearce’s script and directed. He and Cruise had done three other films together with Valkyrie, Edge -f Tomorrow and Jack Reacher, the latter of which McQuarrie directed and adapted from the Lee Child novels. He and Cruise have a shorthand, and he was an inspired choice when Brad Bird decided not to return. They didn’t get rattled even as they decided the original ending could be improved, and the film paused briefly so they could set it up and stage it. The picture grossed $56M domestic in its opening weekend July 31, and it grossed $121M worldwide that weekend. Its $135M gross in China was the highest-grossing 2D film ever in that territory, and the film ended up being the second-highest Mission: Impossible behind Ghost Protocol, which made it the second-highest-grossing film of Cruise’s career. Cruise and McQuarrie committed to do the next installment together, with the ensemble expected back including Rebecca Ferguson in her breakout role. All told, the picture was a winner for Paramount and co-financier Skydance Pictures. It brought $109.8M in net profit, for a Cash on Cash Return of 1.25.

7 Comments

Sweden • on Mar 21, 2016 5:43 pm

The article should look into why Mission was only released in 2D. You have to wonder what kind of force it took to hold back against the studio to keep it 2D, especially in such an action and set piece heavy movie like Mission. Does Cruise have something against the 3D money printing format?

Anonymous • on Mar 21, 2016 6:53 pm

I suspect the trade off with the release date change was dropping the 3D. This is a strong movie and made real money. It didn’t need 3D.

Rebecca Ferguson is amazing.

Well done, sir • on Mar 21, 2016 6:00 pm

Mike, I love this series. Good job with this. You should teach a USC Masters course in the business side of this industry.

Steven • on Mar 21, 2016 10:53 pm

What is the definition of “off-the-tops” and how does that differ from participations?

Also, do major industry figures such as Cruise receive residuals as well as participations, or are residuals reserved only for smaller players who are not as wealthy as the top talent? How does that exactly work? Thanks in advance for any explanations.

A.H. • on Mar 24, 2016 6:30 am

Off the top means that a certain participant gets a “bonus” based on gross performance. So before a film is profitable. It happens on films of all sizes. Any deal can be divided into salary, off the top and backend participation. In terms of residuals, all principal talent is included irrespective of their stature. It’s a union thing.

Caustically Optimistic • on Mar 21, 2016 11:18 pm

Not so fast. The 1.25x multiple may sound sexy until you consider how long the money is out for. Say the movie took a year from start of prep to final delivery; probably 9+ months on the shelf awaiting release; then window-by-window delays in collecting receipts. Based on the forecast, approx 40% of the profit is in TV. Take all this into account and that 25% “profit” may be more like a 10% return. And you’re using the “net” production cost of $150m after collecting production incentives, but the studio had to spend the “gross” cost (maybe $175m?) and then collect the incentives, further lowering the rate of return.

tony • on Mar 22, 2016 8:16 am

it did well to stand out from the other entries in the ‘year of the spy movie’ in 2015 and was a lot more fun than ‘spectre’.